Free speech is the foundation of civilisation. Without it, it’s not possible for a person to express their discontent with the way things are, and without an outlet for discontent it will inevitably turn into violence. As John F Kennedy told us, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
There are powerful political movements in the world today who have calculated that criminalising free speech benefits their agenda, despite this risk. These movements usually have a kind of feminine logic at their core, in that they consider themselves to be righteously resisting masculine excesses like discrimination.
Most are predicated on the moral assumption that, in any conflict between two forces, the weakest force must automatically be the morally correct one, on the grounds that the weaker side would not start a conflict that they would lose.
After some decades of percolating away in sick heads disconnected from reality, this assumption has led the social justice warriors to now believe in the moral imperative of destroying all hierarchy on the grounds that it is necessarily masculine and therefore inherently evil.
No consideration is given to the concept of correct hierarchy that leads to good order – such a thing is simply axiomatically defined as impossible. All order is bad, therefore all must be destroyed.
Such a morality naturally leads to the idea that all weakness is inherently good – hence the resurgence of what Nietzsche would have called “slave morality” in the West.
This explains why so many are bleating the catchphrase of the modern moron: “Hate speech is not free speech” – where hate speech is defined as the promulgation of facts that, despite being true, are politically inconvenient to those who are anti-hierarchy.
In particular, any fact which suggests that a particular hierarchy might be natural and inevitable has to be the most strenuously opposed. As Nietzsche pointed out, the reason for this is the resentment that these weaklings have towards those strong enough to impose good order upon themselves, for it is good order imposed upon oneself that leads to rising in worldly hierarchies.
For instance, the proposition that the text of the Koran will lead inevitably to violence is vociferously opposed by those who want to propagate the impression that the wars in the Middle East are caused primarily by Western interference.
Likewise, the proposition that Islamic terrorism in Europe is a natural consequence of the text of the Koran is opposed by those who want to propagate the impression that the terrorism is blowback for Western interference.
Unsurprisingly, such propositions – entirely independent of any historical or logical validity they might have – are increasingly lumped under the general rubric of “Islamophobia.”
They join propositions such as statements about racial differences in intelligence, or about gender differences in propensity towards certain patterns of behaviour, as politically incorrect ones.
The latest frontier in the war on free speech is attempts to criminalise the free expression of such propositions.
Already there is a concerted movement that means to make it illegal to point out the obvious connection between Koranic verses calling for violence and Islamic expressions of violence, or the obvious connection between the belief that a paedophile was the perfect man and culturally lax attitudes to paedophilia.
The tragedy is, the only reason why the West is no longer an oppressive shithole like the Islamic World is that we have spent the last four centuries using our freedom of speech and expression to destroy the evil of Abrahamism in its manifestation of Christianity.
And, in much the same way that the West was an oppressive, miserable shithole when it was illegal to criticise Christianity, so too will it be an oppressive, miserable shithole when it is illegal to criticise Islam.
What has to happen is a cultural shift where screaming “Racist!” or “Bigot!” at someone is no longer socially sanctioned as legitimate discourse. There needs to be a mass awakening to the fact that this strategy of political manipulation has the overall effect of suppressing honest discussion, and therefore is detrimental to everyone in society, and to society as a whole.
This will require sane people uniting around the spirit of genuine inquiry into the nature of reality, and in opposition to the egomaniacs who are trying to remake the world in their image by force.
And that means uniting around a shared appreciation that free speech keeps us safe from all kinds of excesses, even politically correct ones.
After all, it’s not a coincidence that the Anglosphere, with the strongest cultural appreciation of the value of free speech, has kept itself safe from totalitarianism for the longest time.
The biggest opposition to globalism is for people to have solidarity with the people around them, with those who grew up alongside them, with their neighbours, blood relatives and childhood friends. Having solidarity with those closest to you makes it more difficult for someone further away, like a foreign bank, to exercise influence over you.
Solidarity is what trades union depend on if they are to get fair compensation for their labour from capital interests. Without solidarity, any group of people who do not hold a monopoly on legal violence can be divided and conquered by those who do.
Solidarity is also what all political justice movements depend on if they are to change the law. Without solidarity, political justice movements also get divided and conquered because all members of any movement will, to some degree, have divided loyalties, and any divided loyalty is a flashpoint for conflict.
Having solidarity with those closest to you makes it difficult for an outside influence to come in and offer you money to work against them, or to offer them money to work against you. This means that solidarity induces those around you to work in concert instead of disharmony or opposition, making your life much easier.
Globalists, therefore, have to destroy solidarity in a territory or nation before it can be conquered. The greater the destruction of this solidarity, the greater the vulnerability of the people to predatory outside interests, and the greater the degree that those interests can exploit them before they are able to organise any resistance.
If humanity is to be dominated by an international elite loyal only to themselves, all localist sentiments have to be destroyed. Men have to be set against their wives; couples have to be set against their parents and their children; families have to be set against their neighbours.
People have to be induced to hate their neighbours in order to look to politicians for answers. Therefore, they need to fear their neighbours so that this fear might stagnate into hatred.
In any time and in any place, having large numbers of foreigners turn up in your area usually meant that you were being conquered. If those foreigners were Muslim, traditionally that meant you were about to be slaughtered and your women raped.
So Muslims naturally bring an entirely understandable fear to the neighbourhoods they arrive in, especially when they arrive in large numbers, and doubly especially if the flood shows no sign of stopping.
The face of a Muslim is for the political class much the same thing that a pit bull straining on a leash is for a working-class tough: a weapon that can be used to intimidate one’s enemies, so that this intimidation can render them submissive.
This fear has very predictable effects – know that the rulers of this Earth are master psychologists and have been refining their tricks since Babylon.
One of the predictable effects of mass Muslim immigration is for non-Muslims to form greater bonds of solidarity with each other. For example, in the face of a reinvigorated Muslim attempt to conquer the European continent, the differences between Catholic and Protestant, or Nordic and Mediterranean, suddenly don’t seem so large.
If the leaders of Europe wanted to replace the various national consciousnesses with a European one, the way to do it would be by calling all of the European peoples into an existential conflict against an outside enemy.
As it stands today, almost every native person in Europe, from Spain to Russia, from Britain to Sweden to Greece, has a shared interest in dealing with the continent-wide “Muslim problem.”
So by allowing Muslim “refugees” to flood over the whole continent, the leaders of Europe create a pan-continental consciousness that they control through their dominance of pan-continental media.
It’s much harder to control localist consciousness because this is a function of people getting together and talking and figuring out the truth for themselves. It’s far easier to control a pan-European consciousness because people at this level have to rely on the corporate media, instead of their neighbours, for information – and the globalists own the corporate media.
Because Muslim “refugees” do not get placed in the same neighbourhoods that wealthy globalists live in, the globalists escape the chaos that is wrought on the working-class neighbourhoods that are forced to accept the Muslims.
Every new person in a working-class or middle-class community that does not speak a language that allows them to communicate with their neighbours represents the destruction of the solidarity of that community. Each new entrant forces the level of consciousness away from the level of the street and the neighbourhood to the level of the globe.
For globalist politicians, therefore, opening the doors to refugees helps those globalists to bring chaos into the lives of their enemies in working-class neighbourhoods, crippling their capacity to resist other globalist measures like forcing the working and middle classes to compete with offshore labour.
This column has previously raised the possibility that many of the young liberals supporting mass resettlement of Muslims into Western working-class communities are actually crypto-conservatives deliberately acting to further right-wing class interests.
Perhaps in modern democracies there is only ever a candidate of the bankers and a candidate of the people. In any case, the battle lines are clearly being drawn for anyone with the wit to see them.
The Polish Intelligence Defence, as described by Ben C. Vidgen in State Secrets [Second Edition now available for purchase!], is based around the idea of explicitly not keeping secrets. The concept is mentioned in the introduction of book but, cryptically, is not explained until the last chapter.
The essence of it is, as Vidgen puts it, “The Polish collected secrets pretty much off everyone, which they then promptly turned around and pretty much well gave away to everyone.”
Note that this does not involve being selective about telling some secrets and keeping others, otherwise known as the tendency to employ half-truths. The Polish Intelligence Defence relies on keeping no secrets, no matter whose.
If you don’t have secrets, then no-one has secrets!
VJM Publishing operates on a similar principle. Our objective is to bring knowledge to those who have seen beyond – and neither do we benefit from keeping secrets.
An eternal war exists between the force of truth and the force of lies: and VJM Publishing stands ready to serve as armourer. Understand, however, that we have no interest in telling you what the truth is. We are merely offering tools that can be used to distinguish truth from lies, and instructions on how to use them.
As Vidgen writes, “This modern interpretation of the term intelligence, with its obsession for secrecy, has taken over the entire purpose with which a nation has/or should have an intelligence service in the first place.”
After all, the purpose of a national intelligence service should not be to keep from the people the secrets of the Government (and this is what State Secrets is about). If anything, it is about keeping the people safe from all enemies, without or within.
Likewise, the purpose of a publishing company should not be to act as a mouthpiece for any special interest that wants to shove their propaganda into the mainstream consciousness, as immensely profitable as that may be.
The purpose of a publishing company should be to bring knowledge to people – if a person is willing to pay money for a book then making the trade a fair one necessitates that they are given a useful piece of knowledge in exchange.
VJM Publishing is proud to release a second, revised edition of State Secrets, for the reason that it is a book that tells a story New Zealand needs to hear. As described in the Second Edition Foreword, State Secrets was (and is) a very insightful book, not just for the details of what was happening on the ground but also for the noted trends that continued.
We believe that, if presented with the right information honesty and without a slant or agenda, people are naturally intelligent enough to make correct decisions. As a result, we agree with the spirit of the Polish Intelligence Service. Indeed, as an underground publisher, it is in our interests to.
The hope is that publication of the second edition of State Secrets will increase the standard of political discussion and debate in this country – something which is terribly and tragically lacking.
Indeed, it could be argued that the abysmal quality of political debate and analysis in New Zealand is the result of a deliberate attempt by certain forces to destroy our political culture and to retard our intellectual development through any and all forms of media.